I read several times that every company has their own procedures, for example on how to do callouts, and that these procedures are approved by the authorities.

Why do different companies have different procedures, is that better than having every detail regulated by the authorities? What's the purpose of giving companies some discretion on how to react to certain events?

Are these company rules legally binding for the flight crew, or are they only guidelines?

The answer is in your question. Different Companies. They're different and so wont do things exactly the same way. They'll all give the same effect, but there is more than one way to "skin a cat"...

Normally, company rules are not legally binding as such (Although when you are employed you sign a legal contract that you will follow the company rules). However failure to follow them will cause an inicident which you will be liabel for AND/OR result in termination of your employment at said airline.

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 1):Normally, company rules are not legally binding as such

A little gray area here. Air carrier procedures are approved (at least here in the US) by the FAA. Violation of those procedures carry penalties from the company but may also carry penalties from the FAA.

Typically, an organization's procedure will be equal to or more restrictive than the manufacturer's or the FAA's. I'll give an example from the maintenance side of the house.

Tire wear limits are controlled by our General Maintenance Manual, which contains the rules, regulations and procedures we follow as a maintnance organization. The AMM also has tire wear limits. If we allowed our tires to go to the AMM limit, we would only rarely be able to salvage the carcass. Our GMM limit is much more restrictive and holds the weight of law in the eyes of the FAA.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2): I'll give an example from the maintenance side of the house.

My impression of the original question is more directed to flt crew, specifically call-outs as stated. You're right, as far as tire limits, they are black and white, but to give maybe a better example is the generation of paperwork. How defects are recorded, defered, which copies go where (pink to records, yellow to mcc etc....) they vary from company to company. I know one company had a problem with engine cowls not latched properly, now for thier mtce, it is a dual item requiring a log entry every time they are opened, meanwhile for us, it is not. We had a spacer go missing 15yrs ago on a wheel change, wheel R+R is a dual signiture but not for the preceeding company. Neither of these cases were mandated by Transport Canada, it was an in house originated procedure.

We don't own the airplanes... the company does. They pay us to operate the aircraft the way they specify. If it requires a hog call at 80 knots, we do a hog call. There is input from the pilot group and procedures change as time goes by.... typically for the better and making them more efficient. I've seen my carrier mature in their procedures over the past 2 years... certainly for the better.

The procedures and rules are signed off by the FAA, thus are more or less regs. Some things are actually different than the regs, such as our alternate minimums. We have "sliding" alternate minimums, and there is also a thing called exemption 3585 that allows us to be dispatched to an airport that is conditionally forcasted to be up to half below minimums. Just one of many examples.

You see the same thing in all kinds of markets. You see it between Boeing and Airbus. You even see changes in design and operating philosophy between older and newer Boeings. One example is a device called "speed trim". In the 727 and 737 (even the NG), this system will work against you if you deviate from a certain airspeed by increasing yoke pressure to make you go back to the original speed. On the 757/767 and 777 (although through FBW), "speed trim" works 180 degrees the other way: It actually makes flying the plane easier for you if you accelerate or decelerate from the original speed. I guess somewhere in the Seventies, they changed their philosophy.
A different example between Boeing and Airbus is that Boeing thinks that point-to-point travel is the way of the future and Airbus believes in hub-and-spoke. Both are multi-billion-dollar companies and have a batallion of experts on hand, and still they arrive at different philosophies.

Same goes for airlines. Some find that because their operation is such, they need a specific set of procedures. Other find that because their operation is different, they need a different set of procedures. But even airlines doing the exact same thing can have different philosophies. Some give more authority to the F/O, some none at all. Some have stricter limitations than the other. Some want more cross checks and call outs, and some need fewer. It is all a result of company culture, procedure makers, experience within the airline that causes these different philosophies.

Thank you very much for your insights. Is there a measurable safety impact of these procedures? I mean, certainly if these procedures must be approved they should all be safe, but can it be said that some companies have a "safer" philosophy than others?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):Our GMM limit is much more restrictive and holds the weight of law in the eyes of the FAA.

The FAA approves only three aircraft manuals, the AFM (flight manual) the SRM (structural repair) and the MRB (maintenance review board). The other manuals contained the manufactures recommended procedures that can be add to or deleted from as the operator sees fit.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 8):The FAA approves only three aircraft manuals, the AFM (flight manual) the SRM (structural repair) and the MRB (maintenance review board). The other manuals contained the manufactures recommended procedures that can be add to or deleted from as the operator sees fit.

What about the rest of the controlled and revised manuals that exist in an airline's inventory? Are you telling me that the company is free to change the MEL as it sees fit? No, the MEL is developed in concert with the operator, the manufacturer and the FAA. Revision is allowed only if all 3 concur. In fact, I worked for an operator where ever page of the MEL had an FAA signature.

The AMM, the IPC, the WDM, the company's procedures manual, the loading manual, the Cold Weather Operations Manual, the Flight Manual, the Aircraft Operating Manual, the QRH, the various checklists. The list goes on and on. These manuals and their content are all reviewed and approved by the FAA. Violation of the provisions of any of these manuals can mean certificate action (individual and company) by the FAA.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 10):What about the rest of the controlled and revised manuals that exist in an airline's inventory? Are you telling me that the company is free to change the MEL as it sees fit? No, the MEL is developed in concert with the operator, the manufacturer and the FAA. Revision is allowed only if all 3 concur. In fact, I worked for an operator where ever page of the MEL had an FAA signature.

Speed trim is activated whenever you're hand-flying (not on autopilot) and you're accelerating or decelerating from the trimmed speed (all aircraft are trimmed for a certain airspeed, except Airbusses which have a computer take care of all the laws of physics) and you're not using the trim. On the older Boeings and the 737NG, the system thinks you're doing something wrong and will work against you to get you back to the trimmed speed. On newer Boeings, the system aids you and makes it easier to hand-fly.

Some companies adopt procedures to make their flight crews work more efficiently and safely.The new procedures are based on the airplane operating manuals and can not override it.

A very simple example for you.We have Airbus 320 family and the 340's also.Mostly the 320 family pilots upgrade to A340 after a while and to make the transition easier we adopt some 340 procedures to 320 family.

And another example in the Airbus SOP the PF always taxies the airplane but our company gave this job to Captain only since we have FO's with different experience levels on the type.So this reduces the chances of taxi incidents can be caused by an new FO on the type.

Quoting Grbld (Reply 12):Speed trim is activated whenever you're hand-flying (not on autopilot) and you're accelerating or decelerating from the trimmed speed (all aircraft are trimmed for a certain airspeed, except Airbusses which have a computer take care of all the laws of physics) and you're not using the trim. On the older Boeings and the 737NG, the system thinks you're doing something wrong and will work against you to get you back to the trimmed speed. On newer Boeings, the system aids you and makes it easier to hand-fly.

Grbld

What "system" you are describing simply sounds like flying a trimmed a/c in the example you give of the "older Boeings and the 737NG, and your description of the new Boeings is vague and sounds like you aren't sure what you are talking about in that case either.

If so, how is it powered? Does it trim the a/c or is it an avionics system like a flight director que? I've never heard of "speed trim" in the manner in which you describe it...

You're starting to offend me a little bit. Why is it that you're second guessing my knowledge here?

From my Boeing 737 FCOM:
"The speed trim system (STS) is a speed stability augmentation system designed to improve flight characteristics [...] The purpose of the STS is to return the airplane to a trimmed speed by commanding the stabilizer in a direction opposite the speed change."

From my Boeing 757 FCOM:
"The speed trim system improves speed stability by trimming the stabilizer as airspeed changes."

This is one thing that you notice if you transition between the 757 and the 737, the amount of trimming that's needed on a 737 which is not needed on the 757.

Both systems operate the electrical stabilizer trim motors, there really isn't that much to it.

Quoting Grbld (Reply 12):Speed trim is activated whenever you're hand-flying (not on autopilot) and you're accelerating or decelerating from the trimmed speed (all aircraft are trimmed for a certain airspeed, except Airbusses which have a computer take care of all the laws of physics) and you're not using the trim.

So the stab is trimmed by the speed trim when

1. the a/p is disconnected, and
2. the trim is not being manually activated?

Quoting Grbld (Reply 5):In the 727 and 737 (even the NG), this system will work against you if you deviate from a certain airspeed by increasing yoke pressure to make you go back to the original speed.

Here is my whole point...speed trim will trim the a/c whenever a trim need is sensed and will definitely not increase the control force on the yoke. On the 737, it typically comes in to play at low airspeeds and gross weights, and aft CG (missed approaches, but also the takeoff regime.)

Quoting Wing (Reply 13):And another example in the Airbus SOP the PF always taxies the airplane but our company gave this job to Captain only since we have FO's with different experience levels on the type.So this reduces the chances of taxi incidents can be caused by an new FO on the type.

I know this is done a lot, and sometimes out of necessity when there's only a tiller on the port side. But, how does anyone ever expect to become proficient at taxiing? A new captain was a F/O yesterday, right?

Quoting Grbld (Reply 5):A different example between Boeing and Airbus is that Boeing thinks that point-to-point travel is the way of the future and Airbus believes in hub-and-spoke. Both are multi-billion-dollar companies and have a batallion of experts on hand, and still they arrive at different philosophies.

Well, not to get into a gen_av discussion but the whole h&s vs p2p is a bit pre-chewed by the respective marketing departments

Airbus saw an opportunity for a very large aircraft, and built it. Boeing did not see this opportunity and did not. Instead Boeing hit Airbus where they are weaker, ie medium size medium to long haul (the 757-767 range).

I would also hazard that the North American market, where Boeing is stronger on medium to long haul, is more a p2p market, while the Asian and European long haul markets, where Airbus does more business, has more h&s. This affects thinking since each airframer builds the plane the customer wants (as much as possible).

All the talk we see out of the companies is shaped out of the planes they perceived their customers wanted. Once the planes are being built, the job of the marketing department is to convince the undecideds.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo

Your very question hints at a mindset more European than American. You assume that the "Authorities" (note Capital A) are the authorities. (small a) They are not.

They are the Authorities in that they can and do direct us, supervise us, and can wield legal powers over us. But they are not the authorities in that we know far more than they do. I don't mean to pick on the FAA here, but who has more experience, the private sector or the FAA?

This might slowly be changing but during my working life it went sort of like this. People got into aviation. They advanced through a couple of jobs in larger and more sophisticated airplanes. Then at some point they went one of two ways:

1. The airlines, where they could do nothing but fly really good airplanes, have 'stews' bring them coffee and make gobs of money. or

2. The FAA where their duties were primarily behind a desk. Where there is political infighting and maneuvering for a decreasing number of promotions and where they could make so-so money.

I've had any number of POIs (Principal Operations Inspector) who have never flown, for hire, anything larger than a Piper Navajo or a Cessna 402. They had gone to the FAA academy and picked up a type rating to Government standards and then they were charged with telling me how we should operate our Boeing/Douglas/Airbus whatever fleet. Now there are some really experienced guys in the FAA now, but they went to work for the Feds after retiring from airline jobs. They have twenty thousand hours instead of two thousand, and actual line experience with airliners and they are putting together a second retirement. (or third if they are Guard/Reserves)

Problem is, the FAA has a seniority system too. And the guys with real flight experience are junior to, and subordinate to the guys with no experience.

Tell you how extreme this is. There is a video out on the internet of a hard landing (the tail falls off) of an DC-9-80 prototype at, I believe, Edwards or Palmdale. It was being flown by an FAA 'expert' who was going to be part of the process of granting this new airplane its type certificate, and a DACO test pilot. Fed and a test pilot. Well, I have more total flying time and more DC-9 time than these two guys added together had. And I could be considered a low-time pilot.

So don't stand too much in awe of 'authorities' because without those of us in the real-world trenches all they'd have is a desk, a clipboard and a leisure suit.

On the other hand, they are able to amass great bodies of knowledge however, from manufacturers and airlines and other entities and put it all together for us. Some of the things that came to us from FAA mandates are very good things. CRM comes to mind. I believe that we real 'experts' would still be killing too many passengers without it. But I know more about flying a 737 than almost anyone at the FAA.

So we work together.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.